Corruption Information 1112
The politics of greed is what keeps this world wrapped in corruption. If you want to stick around for a while longer, I suggest you educate yourself and try to do something constructive to help save what little good, honesty, and trust we have left.
A motto for us old vets: Take one with you!
Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.
Go to Home
Highest Go To numbers are the latest Links of all coruption pages.
Go to 12717
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0%2C1518%2C536635%2C00.html
February 20, 2008 Digg Stumble Upon Reddit Facebook Del.icio.us Fark Yahoo Newsvine Google Font:
WORST FINANCIAL CRISIS SINCE 1931?
German State-Owned Banks on Verge of Collapse
By Wolfgang Reuter
The German government has had to bail out state-owned banks with taxpayers' money after their managements recklessly gambled away billions on subprime investments. But if a state-owned bank were to go under, the consequences could be disastrous for the whole economy.
AP
The future is far from bright for Germany's banks.
Ingrid Matthäus-Maier, a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the CEO of the state-owned KfW banking group, is undoubtedly in one of Germany's highest earnings brackets. Although her annual salary of €418,000 ($614,000) is substantially lower than that of her counterpart at Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, who earns a tidy €13 million a year, she does earn more than twice the salary of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has to make do with a mere €200,000.
FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication. That's nice for Matthäus-Maier. A lawyer by profession who was a financial expert for the SPD for many years, she would not have been able to get on the board of a private bank in 1999, the year she joined the board of KfW -- she lacked the banking experience required by law. But KfW is not subject to the same regulations as other banks, which explains why Matthäus-Maier doesn't owe government auditors an explanation -- not even now, in the wake of recent public accusations that she botched the IKB crisis.
As the head of KfW, Matthäus-Maier is a major shareholder in IKB, the Düsseldorf-based bank that is on the brink of bankruptcy and is only being kept afloat by a series of government bailouts running into the billions (more...). Last week was marked by one crisis meeting after the next, but the headstrong government banker had more than the future of IKB on her mind. Indeed, she seemed more concerned about her employment contract and whether it would be extended. Her demands triggered an irritated reaction from the head of the KfW supervisory board, Economics Minister Michael Glos, as well as from others present at the meetings.
Two days later, it was announced that former IKB CEO Stefan Ortseifen could look forward to a princely retirement pension of €31,500 a month -- effectively a token of appreciation for his failures. Ortseifen, after investing billions in the high-risk US subprime mortgage sector, insisted that the "uncertainties in the American mortgage market" would have "practically no effect" on IKB's investments. A few days later, IKB was on the verge of bankruptcy, with its supposed wonderful US investments worth little more than the paper it was printed on.
And German banks are not the only ones being hard hit by the subprime crisis. In the UK, the government earlier this week announced plans to temporarily nationalize the troubled bank Northern Rock until market conditions improved. The bank ran into difficulties last year as a result of the global credit crunch and was forced to ask the Bank of England for a bail-out. The House of Commons passed emergency legislation to nationalize the bank in the early hours of Wednesday morning, and the bill is expected to be approved by the House of Lords by the end of the week.
Amateurism and Greed
Ortseifen and Matthäus-Maier are perfect examples of the fatal mix of amateurism, greed and political protection that is symptomatic for many of Germany's state-owned, partially state-owned and public sector banks. It is an environment that can only thrive in the shadow of the state -- and that has drained more than €20 billion from the public treasury within the last decade.
AP
KfW's Ingrid Matthäus-Maier is accused of botching the IKB crisis.
Until now, the government has always been there to pick up the tab in the end. Fully aware of this safety net, the executives at state-owned banks gambled with their employers' assets as if there was no tomorrow. Munich-based BayernLB did it with stocks in Singapore, Bankgesellschaft Berlin with real estate investments, and WestLB with holdings in British companies.
Anyone who is not responsible for bearing the consequences of the risks he or she takes can easily turn into a gambler. And the bets kept increasing in recent years, getting more and more public-sector banks into financial hot water. Now the banks find themselves lacking the assets they need to weather the turmoil of an international financial crisis.
Matthäus-Maier's bank KfW has already had to provide IKB with close to €5 billion in a series of three bailouts. With KfW itself gradually running out of cash, the federal government has now contributed another €1.9 billion.
The state of North Rhine-Westphalia has injected €1 billion into WestLB, another state-owned bank, as well as providing the ailing bank with another €3 billion in loan guarantees. The situation is even worse in Saxony, where the state has issued €2.73 billion in loan guarantees to Sachsen LB, that state's Landesbank, as Germany's state-backed regional banks are known. The other state-owned banks are providing another €14 billion in guarantees. Hamburg-based HSH Nordbank urgently needs €1 billion in fresh capital, while BayernLB last week reported a €1.9 billion write-down as a result of subprime exposure. BayernLB announced Tuesday that the bank's chief executive, Werner Schmidt, will be stepping down as of March 1 as a result of the crisis.
The situation for Germany's public banks has become so dramatic that it threatens to topple what has been one of the key pillars of the country's banking system. The state-owned banks are supposed to bail each other out when necessary, but the problem is that many are in trouble themselves and hardly in a position to help their peers. And things could get even worse.
If an industry giant like WestLB were forced to its knees -- which almost happened two weeks ago -- at least two other state-owned banks and a dozen savings and loan associations would crumple along with it. The member banks of the German Savings Banks Finance Group (Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe) are closely interlinked, and they are required to vouch for each other -- as long as they are in a position to do so, that is. The failure of a major state-owned bank like WestLB would also inevitably affect corporate customers, even forcing some into bankruptcy.
DER SPIEGEL
Graphic: The federal government's rescue measures for IKB (click to enlarge)
It is a nightmare scenario that the government financial supervisory authority now believes is increasingly likely. Germany's public-sector banks speculated far more heavily than private banks in American subprime mortgage securities. Now these banks' beleaguered executives are calling on the government to bail them out from a disaster of their own making.
It is a paradoxical situation, because the government, responding to pressure from Brussels, was required to withdraw its guarantee of protection for state-owned banks as of July 2005. Since then, it has only been liable for risks incurred before that date.
The consequences of the change were devastating for the public-sector banks, which suddenly found their business model pulled out from under their feet. In the days of government backing, they were able to borrow money at lower rates, which in turn allowed them to offer loans at lower rates than their private competitors. But that advantage ended in 2005.
Hard up for funds, many of the public-sector banks began speculating with high-risk securities. According to a former bank executive, many "literally stocked up on these investments" shortly before the cut-off date. Others even continued to do so after the cut-off date. Lacking a functioning business model, they turned to what was essentially gambling -- and lost.
Go to 12716
http://www.rense.com/general80/angry.htm
In Election 2008 - Don't
Forget Angry White Man
By Gary Hubbell
2-21-8
There is a great amount of interest in this year's presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates - a woman and an African-American - while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn't looking for anything from anyone - just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords - "disenfranchised," "marginalized" and "voiceless" - don't resonate with him. "Press 'one' for English" is a curse-word to him. He's used to picking up the tab, whether it's the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a "living document" open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he's willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn't bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina - he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don't matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He's a man's man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn't ask for a penny. He's the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he's a man, not a dishrag. If they're looking for someone to walk all over, they've got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am."
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He's willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the "poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Go to 12715
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212008/business/kkr_in_credit_crush_98651.htm
KKR IN CREDIT CRUSH
2-WK. DEBT HOLIDAY
By ZACHERY KOUWE
Loading new images...
February 21, 2008 -- Even the barbarians didn't think the credit crisis would last this long.
A firm affiliated with leveraged buyout giant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., run by billionaire Henry Kravis, was forced to seek a two-week delay on the repayment of billions of dollars of debt after failing to find investors to refinance.
KKR Financial Holdings, whose stock has fallen 50 percent in the last six months, said yesterday that it had reached an agreement with its lenders to delay repayment of the short-term debt while it continues discussions on restructuring.
The debt, which was due Feb. 15, is backed by mortgage loans that continue to perform well, but because of the credit crisis have been nearly impossible to sell.
It is the second time in six months that KKR Financial has delayed repayment on short-term debt due to the credit crunch.
A chunk of the debt is now due March 3 and another slice is due March 13.
In August, the firm got a $230 million cash infusion from investors because of losses on mortgage investments and then raised another $270 million in a stock offering with some of KKR's own partners, including Kravis and George Roberts, putting in some of their own money.
While most analysts said KKR Financial's announcement won't result in any losses for the firm, it rekindled concerns that the short-term debt market continues to be frozen after a brief rebound in early January.
That has left institutions such as pensions and money-market funds holding securities they can't cash in.
Florida's State Board of Administration, which manages money for municipalities in the Sunshine State, has $500.7 million invested in KKR Financial's debt.
The board has the right to seize the collateral if the units don't repay principal and interest, according to public documents.
KKR Financial fell 28 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $14.25 in yesterday's trading. The company went public in 2005 at $24 a share.
John Hecht, an analyst with JMP Securities, said yesterday that KKR Financial "has dramatically reduced its capital markets risk and is structured as one of the few companies that can take advantage of and benefit from the current turmoil in the marketplace." zachery.kouwe@nypost.com
Go to 12714
http://www.commoninterest.info/
San Fran’s newspaper exposes Elite Control Scheme
February 21st, 2008 5Both Parties are controlled by the same international elites, and in this new, Aquarian Age, we have to meditate, read worthwhile history (like the Mencken book alluded to below), and make our own informed choices. And today, the San Francisco Chronicle has exposed the NeoCon Elite’s scheme to use fear and control to centralize power. Have you ever read anything as Orwellian as this?
“Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.”
And for what reason are concentration camps needed in each state of the Union?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
And to fill those camps with dissidents, er, I mean, terrorists:
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic “war on terror.” Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which passed the House by the lopsided vote, would set up a commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes” of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
A clue as to where Harman’s commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters … the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 “terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
The San Francisco Chronicle is a mainstream media company, so no one can call this conspiracy theory.
There will be more and more dissidents subject to these Police State laws as dissidents are created by Elite funding of both sides of advocacy fights. Take the immigration battle: both sides are controlled. Immigration shouldn’t be an issue - our Constitution grants no Power for the federal govt to interfere in human movement in or out of the border. All the Founders wanted was a system of Naturalization by which immigrants could become citizens, and otherwise Free Trade to make sure no foreigner wanted to kill us and to ensure a growing economy to employ all the newcomers.
Another Elite favorite is the Drug War, against which even former cops are advocating through a group called LEAP. Yesterday I blogged about a client’s lawsuit to overturn the whole war. Speaking of Enforcement, here’s what H.L. Mencken, American’s great social critic from the 1920s, said. Can’t wait to read his just-found book, “Notes on Democracy”.
And when the Elite face criticism, they do a minimal amount of good things, and make sure their Elite media friends broadcast about those actions. The World Trade Organization, for example, is colluding with Big Pharma and Big Agra to have the United Nation’s Codex group outlaw natural food and nutrients, as blogged previously. But WTO also does help consumers gain access to more goods and services. Does the latter, then, justify extra-national government, of which the WTO is an example?
Another international body facilitates Elite control of developing countries. The World Bank funds giant infrastructure projects that, since they do not arise from the private sector, lack long term sustainability, and at the same time crowd out investment that otherwise would fund loans to middle class retailers. Congressman Paul says as much in a recent Banking Committee hearing.
The Elite want their “frankenfoods,” and they’re isolating Europe’s intransigence with appeals about the hunger of the world.
Elites now are being blamed by a SE Asian country for using Avian Flu as a BioTerrorist weapon, and as a Big Pharma tool to sell vaccines.
But the Elites can’t handle threats to their War against Terrorism: no acquittals are allowed in Gitmo, which should be ceded back to Cuba, just as trade restrictions with Cuba should be lifited with Castro’s departure. And for those taken in by Michael Moore’s “Sicko,” that Castro’s healthcare system was admirable, think again.
Not only are acquittals prohibited for the poor prisoners at Guantanomo, but also dissent in the Media is verboten, as Chez found out at CNN, for his Huffington blogging.
Finally, I can’t believe the Elites are interfering in children playtime with legos.
Go to 12713
http://www.rense.com/general63/skol71.htm
The Overthrow Of The
American Republic - Part 71
Bill Of Rights 'Obsolete'?
By Sherman H. Skolnick
3-18-5
There are various versions of History. There is the Establishment type, that comes out about the time of a current event. Then, the "powers that be" in books supposedly detailing the period have their say.
And then, there is the non-Ruling Class report condemned at first, but later believed. Such as after one or two participants, with direct knowledge, have their Diaries or Memoirs published after they are too old to care or are already dead.
So for the use of the peons, the press reports that in March, 2005, there was a meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States. They dealt with a current growing problem, so the press whores told us. The gathering of Judges dealt with the growing number of attacks on Judges or their families.
Naturally, such a conference would deal with supposed remedies. None of the press fakers, however, would dare raise questions:
Such as, have the American Secret Political Police orchestreated some, if not all, of these happenings to falsely shape U.S. domestic policies? And if so, then, WHY? The "for sale" pundits are silent, acting as mere stenographers on behalf of those who rule us without the consent of those governed.
So, at the selfsame Judicial Conference, the high priests of jurisprudence met behind closed doors. Even under such circumstances, they did not for the entire group, divulge what was REALLY on their mind. For the real purpose, they met before, during, and after the meeting in very small, hushed groups, pledged to the utmost secrecy, their ideas not to be in any way divulged or hinted at in their later press blurb.
What was it that was troubling these lawless heavyweights of the Bench? Some examples:
[1] With a sneer, the Bench and the Bar refer to a class of persons, that to the high and mighty, are considered lowlifes, in their real world, not worthy of attention. This category is labeled "pro se litigants". Referred to are persons who come to the courthouse without a lawyer, just representing themselves.
The spy-riddled, oil-soaked, massive tax-cheating Monopoly Press do not see fit to remind us of the history of this land and nation. In the Colonial period, the Lawyers and the Judges were generally pledged to uphold and support the Crown, the certifiably-insane Monarchy in London.
When the mercantile class in the Colonies rebelled---"No Taxation Without Representation"---they painted black the chimneys of the Crown's colonial Judges and Lawyers, who fled to Canada. Even in the colonial period, and thereafter, it was perfectly alright for a would-be litigant to have a trusted non-lawyer present the claim or defend the litigrant, such as a spouse, another family member, a friend, or business associate.
Plainly, lawyers were the enemy, loyal to the Crown and their Judges who, on occasion, delayed remedies, if at all, twenty years and more.
[See, "the long Train of Abuses and Usurpations", in the "Declaration of Independence".]
The idea of having a mouthpiece, a Lawyer, became prevalent in the latter decades of the 19th Century.
To further isolate laymen and business associates from being able to speak for themselves, the Anglo-American aristocracy introduced the idea of Corporations. And arbitrary, hide-bound laws were passed that Corporations can only be in Court by way of a Lawyer. Even corporations consisting of only a husband and a wife as corporate officials, MUST hire an attorney to speak for their business.
Certainly, this promoted the welfare of the Attorneys Unemployment Bureau.
[2] What has been upsetting the Lords of the Bench, is that they are faced with exposure of their criminality at the hands of a growing squad of laymen, non-lawyers, some quite astute at digging out the stinking dirt of America's corruptible, corrupted Federal Judiciary.
The liars and whores of the press particularly protect the Federal Judges from being scandalized. Why? First, because such Judges are considered as part of the "Holy of Holies". The Federal Judiciary protects Big Business. When you carefully examine what such Judges are linked to, plainly they are not routine Traffic Court Judges.
Secondly, the really important Federal Judges we call Banker-Judges.
For example, in Chicago sits the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (appeals from U.S. District Courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin).
There have been sitting three judges originating from Rockefeller's University of Chicago Law School. 7th Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner [(312) 435-5806 ] and his virtual shadow, Frank H. Easterbrook [(312) 435-5808], formerly professors at the Law School; and Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood [(312) 435-5521 ], formerly the Dean of the Law School.
The three of them have ostensibly perjured themselves by not revealing financial links as required in their mandatory annual Judicial financial disclosure form. On the bench, they reportedly represent the several Billion Dollar stock and investment portfolio of Rockefeller's University of Chicago. They do NOT disqualify themselves when the businesses in the portfolio are litigants in their Court. Guess who wins?
In the same reputed perjured situation is U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia likewise a former professor of the same Law School, and likewise, on the bench representing the selfsame portfolio and not disclosing the same as required by law.
Scalia is one of five judges on the U.S. Supreme Court corrupted by clandestine funds from Coca-Cola and others, in Bush versus Gore, December 2000, arbitrarily and corruptly installing George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the Oval Office.
[Visit Home page links
[3] The Judges are concerned that thoughout the nation, particularly in the Federal Courts, are examples of Federal Court corruption dared to be put into the court records by "pro se litigants".
Without seeming to brag, we must point out a fact. Most all the judges ever sent to jail for bribery in the history of the nation, were prosecuted and jailed as a result of our work as a court-reform group over the last four decades.
[4] So a small, secret panel of the Judicial Conference, pledged to denial if now revealed, are setting about to institute the following "remedies" to be used against "pro se litigants", that is, would-be whistle-blowers who are not members of the Bench and the Bar:
(A) "Pro se litigants", starting at some not too far off future date, will not be allowed directly into the federal courthouses. Such persons must show up at a separate facility, not the courthouse, to be first of all "screened". "Star-Chamber" like examiners will grill such would-be litigants:
(B) Are such "pro se" types of "sound mind" (and HOW is THAT defined?);
(C) Can such would-be "pro se litigants" be shown to be "cranks", "malcontents", with "frivolous" claims or defenses?
(D) Are such would-be "pro se litigants" supposedly "without a basis" digging into possible corruption of Federal Judges and would confront such Judges in the court records? Have such "pro se-ers" already accused federal judges of specific wrong-doing, such as Judges issuing rulings where the judges perpetrate a fraud upon their own Court by inserting fairy tales instead of actual undisputed court-record facts?
(E) Have such :"pro se litigants" in the past embarassed federal judges by pointing to big law firms arbitrarily winning rulings at the hands of a federal judge whose immediate relatives hold partnerships and other positions with the large law firm? And in the past, have such "pro se litigants" refused to shut up when the federal judge told them to regarding such issue?
(F) Such panel "screening" the "pro se litigant" is to determine that instead of permitting such litigant or would-be litigant into the federal courthouse, that such person instead be sent to a mental health facility to determine if they are "criminally insane". The federal courts already have such a facility in Springfield, Missouri, where inmates are shot up with thorazine and other mind-numbing chemicals to make them listless and "peaceful".
[5] In this series on Overthrow, we have given the rationale for what is happening. So the secret panel of Judges, linked to the finance, clout, and power necessary to carry out their commands, designates themselves, at least in secret, as sitting ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS. Their excuse, bluntly put, is that America has too great a population to have everyone guaranteed the rights in those documents which they, by their actions to come, declare to be obsolete. And that the fundamental documents of this nation were designed for a relatively tiny population in the 18th Century and not useful in the 21st Century.
Thus cancelled in secret and such orders carried out, relate to the following:
Up to now forbidden is "abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Since the federal judiciary has already lawlessly taken upon themselves to be a super-Legislature passing laws, the First Amendment prohibition applies to both Congress and the Federal Courts. How can you pursue your claims or defense in the Federal Courts, if, because you are a "pro se litigant", you are not permitted to go into the Federal Courthouse in your District or Federal Appeal Circuit?
Are the High Priests of the Federal Courts reacting to emergencies about which they are in a position to know the truth?
ARE THE ATTACKS UPON JUDGES AND THEIR FAMILIES ORCHESTRATED BY HITLER AMERICA'S SECRET POLITiCAL POLICE, FBI, CIA, and HOMELAND SECURITY, forming a Gestapo?
Go to 12712
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868
ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator
Posted: February 19, 2008
11:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Peter Paul and President Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.
At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.
Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.
The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.
Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.
Hillary Clinton with Peter and Andrea Paul (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.
Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.
Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.
Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."
The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.
"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."
Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers
Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.
Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.
Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.
Special offers:
Go to 12711
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_080219_breaking_9_2f11_news_3a_.htm
February 20, 2008
BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!
by Bill Douglas
Nationally syndicated talk show host Charles Goyette uncovered blockbuster information in his drive-time interview with author David Ray Griffin.
A center piece of the increasingly apparent BULLSH*T story our government and corporate media have fed us for six long years was a complete fabrication!
We were fed a lie by Ted Olsen who served as Solictor General for the Bush Administration, when on 9/11 he held a press conference to tell America and the world that his dead wife had called him before her demise from the jet she was on that had just been hijacked.
Personally, I thought it was odd at the time that a man would decide to hold a press conference minutes after hearing of his own wife’s death, when it happened on 9/11. If my own wife had just died, the last thing I’d want to do would be to talk to anyone, let alone call a press conference. It didn’t “smell” right.
Now we know why it didn’t smell right. It was a lie. The FBI has reported that no such call between Barbara Olsen and Ted Olsen ever took place on 9/11/2001.
It was part of the rapidly unraveling scam that is the official story of 9/11.
In fact, Griffin went on to explain that there is zero evidence that any hijackers had commandeered a plane at all. True Bush believers will say, whao, wait a minute, we all know they did. How do you know? Because Bush told you.
But, as Griffin rightly points out, in this interview, there is no “EVIDENCE” of their existence.
Which also reveals that mis-information shill, Popular Mechanics, in their 9/11 interview on the Charles Goyette Show months ago, lied when they told us there was DNA evidence of the so-called Muslim hijackers. LIES, all lies.
Find links to the entire interviews of February 19, 2008, at:
Go to 12710
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13946
When will corporate media stop their participation in a criminal cover up? If the former Solicitor General lying to America by creating a complete fabrication he spread around the world through corporate media, is not a story worthy of CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Democracy Now, The Nation, Rolling Stone, PBS, NPR, and all the other fourth estate . . . then they have no right to refer to themselves as media.
They should forever in the future refer to themselves as “The Propaganda Ministry.”
So, how can we break through the hijacking of our media in America? How can we get the mass culture to be exposed to hard questions around 9/11?
We must use guerilla tactics, and take opportunities when they come.
On January 22nd, 2008, a New York Times best selling novelist, put his career on the line to write an explosive new edu-tainment book called “The Shell Game.”
Go to 12709
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-dismisses-bird-flu-claims/2008/02/20/1203467183624.html
Mark Forbes Herald Correspondent in Jakarta
February 21, 2008
THE United States has rejected the Indonesian Health Minister's claims that it is using bird flu samples to produce biological weapons and World Health Organisation officials have condemned allegations of conspiring to profit from bird flu vaccines. The Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is understood to have ordered the minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, to recall copies of her book on avian influenza, which alleges the US and the WHO are conspiring against developing countries by seizing control of bird flu samples.
WHO officials said they were dismayed by some of the claims and urged Dr Supari to do more to control bird flu's spread and end her refusal to share virus samples - which is hampering attempts to find a cure.
At a news conference yesterday Dr Yudhoyono said Indonesia was willing to resume sharing bird flu virus samples if a fair and equitable agreement was reached.
"There is a misunderstanding among foreign nations that Indonesia won't co-operate, as if Indonesia won't share … but concrete co-operation has to be based on fairness."
A US State Department spokeswoman, Susan Stahl, denied Dr Supari's claim that Indonesian virus samples had been sent to a biological weapons laboratory in Los Alamos. The laboratory possessed no bird flu viruses from Indonesia or elsewhere, she said.
The facility's only involvement was hosting a database of publicly available genetic-sequencing data to help track the evolution of the virus, she said.
Dr Supari yesterday continued to say that virus samples had been sent via the WHO to the laboratory in Los Alamos. "Whether they use it to make vaccine or develop chemical weapons would depend on the need and interest of the US Government. It is indeed a very dangerous situation for the destiny of humanity."
The WHO's assistant director-general for Health Security, David Heymann, said he was puzzled by the claims.
"I don't understand why they would take this virus to make a biological weapon; it doesn't transmit from human to human. Indonesia needs to spend more time on dealing with infections with chickens and stopping humans from being infected."
He said Dr Supari had opened up the important issue of improving access to vaccines.
The director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Influenza in Melbourne, Anne Kelso, said she was saddened by the accusations and the organisation monitored how the virus was changing. "We don't personally profit in any way from that work," she said.
Go to 12708
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/navy-research-p.html
Navy Research Paper: 'Disrupt Economies' with Man-Made 'Floods,' 'Droughts'
By Noah Shachtman February 11, 2008
A recently-unearthed U.S. Navy research project calls for creating mad-made floods and droughts to "disrupt [the] economy" of an enemy state.
"Weather modification was used successfully in Viet Nam to (among other things) hinder and impede the movement of personnel and material from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam," notes a Naval Air Warfare Weapons Division - China Lake research proposal, released last month through the Freedom of Information Act. But "since that time military research on Weather Modification has dwindled in the United States."
The proposal suggests a study of the latest weather manipulation techniques, to "give the U.S. military a viable, state-of-the-art weather modification capability again." With that in hand, American forces would be able...
To impede or deny the movement of personnel and material because of rains-floods, snow-blizzards, etc.
(2) To disrupt economy due to the effect of floods, droughts, etc.
The proposal is undated. But it's pretty clearly from the Cold War. Not only is "the Soviet Union (Russia)" mentioned. The money is also relatively small, by today's standards -- less than a half-million dollars, over two years.
A military in-house newspaper calls "weather modification" an "area of China Lake preeminence. Between 1949 and 1978, China Lake developed concepts, techniques, and hardware that were successfully used in hurricane abatement, fog control, and drought relief. Military application of this technology was demonstrated in 1966 when Project Popeye was conducted to enhance rainfall to help interdict traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail." (Here's a picture of China Lake's "Cold Cloud Modification System."
In 1980, the United States ratified a treaty banning military weather manipulation. But every once in a while, someone in the armed forces floats the idea of doing it again. "Our vision is that by 2025 the military could influence the weather on a mesoscale [theater-wide] or microscale [immediate local area] to achieve operational capabilities," a 1996 Air Force-commissioned study reads.
Today, Chinese officials are trying to figure out ways to keep it from raining over Beiing, during this summer's Olympics.
Go to 12707
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=12384
February 19, 2008
Israel Says 'No'
by Ran HaCohen
On Jan. 23 Ha'aretz readers were utterly embarrassed. Just as the quality paper was printing its top headline, based on Israel's omniscient "security sources" – "New Israeli Policy in Gaza: Border Crossings Will Stay Closed" – the border crossings between Gaza and Egypt were being opened; a few hours later, they didn't exist anymore. Once again, the regional power was caught in surprise; Hamas won by breaking the siege.
A good indication for a declining empire is its inherent tendency to say "no" to reality. The Soviet Union gave the English language the interjection "nyet." Long ago, it was the Arabs who said "no" – no to negotiations, no to normalization, no to recognition, no to peace. This changed, at the latest, with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. Now it's Israel that has become the nyet-sayer. Get prepared to look up "lo," the Hebrew "no," in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Israeli border town of Sderot is under attack. Rockets from Gaza are fired at the civilian population on a daily basis. No country can tolerate that for long, but the attacks have been going on for seven years. Military operations have all failed to stop or even significantly reduce the fire. Any rational adviser would say (1) protect or evacuate the inhabitants of Sderot; (2) talk to those firing the missiles and see what they want. Israel, however, says "no" to both suggestions.
Why Not Talk to Hamas?
Talks with Hamas are a good place to start. Polls show strong support among Israelis for such a step. But Israel says "no." The ideology propagated by the media is so dominant that this issue is not even discussed in Israel; rejectionism is taken for granted. Why not talk to Hamas?
The official answer: "Hamas denies Israel's right to exist." A ridiculous argument, which comes down to "we don't talk to our enemy because he is our enemy," or "we'd rather make peace with friends than with foes." Moreover, Hamas offers a long-term cease-fire, lasting years or even decades. Israel says "no" to that too. Why? The idiotic Israeli answer is that Hamas would use the time to rearm. As if Israel would use the time to make love. A pseudo-democracy run by the military is totally blind to the rational logic of creating a "temporary" peaceful atmosphere, boosting the parties' vested interest in a peaceful life, raising a new generation in prosperity and free of old hatreds, and so on. Better a war right now than decades of peace and a war – perhaps – afterwards. It surely is better – for the weapons industry, and for the graveyards.
Israel, of course, is a spoiled colonialist. In Abu Mazen Israel found a weak but rather reliable collaborator. Talking to Hamas, so the experts claim, would weaken Abu Mazen and make him issue more demands, to compete with Hamas. Even a successful policy of "divide and rule" has its disadvantages. Somehow, there's always an excuse: if the Palestinians are united, we cannot make peace with them because they are either too weak (and thus unreliable) or too strong (and too demanding). If they are divided, we surely cannot talk to them because the fractions would compete.
Obviously, the true reason not to seriously negotiate – Israel already says the end of the year is much too early to strike a deal even with Abu Mazen! – is that Israel is unwilling to end the occupation. Not only land and water are at stake, but, as Meron Rapoport of Ha'aretz recently reminded, more than 6 percent of all Israeli exports (excluding diamonds) go to the occupied Palestinian market, about $2 billion a year, more than to France and Italy combined: fruits and vegetables, medicines and hospital equipment, water and electricity, steel and cement. A captive market, where products not good enough for the Israeli customer can be dumped for good money (from the donor countries). A precious asset in a competitive capitalist world.
Civilians as Propaganda Card
Ehud Barak will be remembered in Israel's history as the one who introduced the abuse of innocent civilians as political cards. Barak was probably not the first Israeli warrior to abuse civilians on a tactical level, but he was the one who turned it into a central Israeli strategy. Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon, in 1996, with Barak as an influential cabinet member, openly targeted civilians, turning them into refugees to make them put pressure on Beirut's government. The recent siege on Gaza follows a similar logic: put pressure on civilians to achieve political goals. (A clear war crime, it goes without saying.)
The Israeli inhabitants of Sderot are similarly abused. Israel hasn't yet found the budget to give suitable protection to those bombed citizens. Only last week, 23 public shelters were opened in the southern town – financed, however, not by the Israeli government, but by an American evangelical foundation (IFCJ). It is also a private donor who, from time to time, takes some of Sderot's residents to a week off in a safe hotel. Inhabitants seeking government aid to leave their bombarded town were turned down: "house hostages" as Ha'aretz terms it. Evacuating the town, says official Israel, would be yielding to terror. Obviously, an 8-year-old child losing a leg in Sderot is a propaganda asset Israel cannot resist. How easy it is, sitting in an armchair in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or Washington, to make a point on the back of innocent civilians – both in Gaza and in Sderot.
And all this in vain, of course: the citizens of Sderot grow understandably impatient, with their protest capitalized on by political parties. The inhabitants of Gaza now broke the siege – which doesn't make Israel lift it – and the rockets keep being fired. What's the solution? The rejectionist regime can offer just more of the same. Interior Minister Meir Shitreet recently suggested to "demolish a whole neighborhood in Gaza." Other politicians and columnists do not lag in "creative" ideas. Israel is doing what it thinks it does best: sowing death and destruction. But as we now know, even in this Israel is not as good as it used to be.
Go to 12706
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
Monday, February 18, 2008
A Clean Break
A Clean Break
Subscribe to the Representative Press Channel on YouTube
(it's free and doing so helps spread the word)
Click Here
Help get the facts out to the public on a large scale. Representative Press has over 10,000 subscribers on YouTube, making it one of the most, if not the most, subscribed political channel on YouTube, every subscription helps push these facts even more into the public debate, subscribe to Representative Press NOW. (it's free) You can also help the cause by donating.
'A Clean Break'(War for Israel) agenda of the Likudnik JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons (pages 261-269/318-321 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book"):
Get your own copy of A Pretext for War Now!
Also see video: Condoleezza Rice Lied
"Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote, dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors. From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a dangerous and provocative change in philosophy. They recommended launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East, attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Then, to gain the support of the American government and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter potentially hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-emptive war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war. Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq--an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right--as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest, and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early 1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation. Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . . .Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians. The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's "Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go. Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he quickly objected.
He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army, recalled Paul O'Neill, who had be sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury by Bush only hours before and seated at the table. Powell told Bush, the consequences of that could be be dire, especially for the Palestinians. But Bush just shrugged. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things, he said. Powell seemed startled, said O'Neill.
Over the following months, to the concern of Powell, the Bush-Sharon relationship became extremely tight. This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman, said Thomas Neuman, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs "JINSA" a pro-Israel advocacy group. In an article in the Washington Post titled "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Middle East Policy," Robert G. Kaiser noted the dramatic shift in policy.
For the First time, wrote Kaiser, a US administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier US administrations, from Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton's, held Likud and Sharon at arm's length, distancing the United States from Likud's traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. Using the Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party to the new relationship between Bush and Sharon, a senior US government official told Kaiser, "The Likudniks are really in charge now."
With America's long struggle to bring peace to the region quickly terminated, George W. Bush could turn his attention to the prime focus of his first National Security Council meeting; ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Condoleezza Rice led off the discussion. But rather than mention anything about threats to the United States or weapons of mass destruction, she noted only that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region. The words were practically lifted from the "Clean Break" report, which had the rather imperial-sounding subtitles: "A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
Then Rice turned the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet, who offered a grainy overhead picture of a factory that he said "might" be a plant "that produced either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture." There were no missiles or weapons of any kind, just some railroad tracks going to a building; truck activity; and a water tower--things that can be found in virtually any city in the US. Nor were there any human intelligence or signals intelligence reports. There was no confirming intelligence, Tenet said.
It was little more than a shell game. Other photo and charts showed US air activity over the "no fly-zone," but Tenet offered no more intelligence. Nevertheless, in a matter of minutes the talk switched from a discussion about very speculative intelligence to which targets to begin bombing in Iraq.
By the time the meeting was over, Treasury Secretary O'Neill was convinced that "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus, that much was already clear," But, O'Neill believed, the real destabilizing factor in the Middle East was not Saddam Hussein but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the issue Bush had just turned his back on. Ten years after the Gulf War, said O'Neill, "Hussein seemed caged and defanged. Clearly, there were many forces destabilizing the region, which we were now abandoning."
The war summit must also have seemed surreal to Colin Powell, who said little during the meeting and had long believed that Iraq had not posed a threat to the United States. As he would tell German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer just a few weeks later, "What we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. . . .Containment has been a successful policy."
In addition to the "Clean Break" recommendations, David Wurmser only weeks before the NSC meeting had further elaborated on the way the United States might go about launching a pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East. America's and Israel's responses must be regional not local, he said. Israel and the United Staes should adopt a coordinated strategy, to regain the initiative and reverse their region-wide strategic retreat. They should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the center of radicalism in the region--the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, and Gaza. That would re-establish the recognition that fighting with either the US or Israel is suicidal. Many in the Middle East will then understand the merits of being an American ally and of making peace with Israel.
In the weeks and months following the NSC meeting, Perle, Feith and Wurmser began taking their places in the Bush administration. Perle became chairman of the reinvigorated and powerful Defence Policy Board, packing it with like-minded neoconservative super-hawks anxious for battle. Feith was appointed to the highest policy position in the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. And Wurmser moved into a top policy position in the State Department before later becoming Cheney's top Middle East expert.
With the Pentagon now under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz--both of whom had also long believed that Saddam Hussein should have been toppled during the first Gulf War--the war planners were given free reign. What was needed, however, was a pretext--perhaps a major crisis. Crisis can be opportunities, wrote Wurmser im his paper calling for an American-Israeli pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East.
Seeing little reason, or intelligence justification, for war at the close of the inaugural National Security Council meeting, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was perplexed. Who, exactly, was pushing this foreign policy? He wondered to himself. And "why Saddam, why now, and why [was] this central to US interests?"
The following includes pages 318-322 from Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book:
Hadley and Libby were part of another secret office that had been set up within the White House. Known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), it was established in August 2002 by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr., at the same time the OSP (Office of Special Plans) was established in Feith's office. Made up of high-level administration officials, its job was to sell the war to the general public, largely through televised addresses and by selectively leaking the intelligence to the media.
In June 2002, a leaked computer disk containing a presentation by chief Bush strategist Karl Rove revealed a White House political plan to use the war as a way to "maintain a positive issue environment." But the real pro-war media blitz was scheduled for the fall and the start of the election season "because from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," said Card.
At least once a week they would gather around the blonde conference table downstairs in the Situation Room, the same place the war was born on January 30, 2001, ten days into the Bush presidency. Although real intelligence had improved very little in the intervening nineteen months, the manufacturing of it had increased tremendously. In addition to Hadley and Libby, those frequently attending the WHIG meetings included Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, communications gurus Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; and legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio.
In addition to ties between Hussein and 9/11, among the most important products the group was looking to sell as Labor Day 2002 approached were frightening images of mushroom clouds, mobile biological weapons labs, and A-bomb plants, all in the hands of a certified "madman." A key piece of evidence that Hussein was building a nuclear weapon turned out to be the discredited Italian documents purchased on a street corner from a con man.
The WHIG began priming its audience in August when Vice President Cheney, on three occasions, sounded a shrill alarm over Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat. There "is no doubt," he declared, that Saddam Hussein "has weapons of mass destruction." Again and again, he hit the same chord. "What we know now, from various sources, is that he . . . continues to pursue a nuclear weapon." And again: "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
Facing network television cameras, Cheney warned, "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law." The relative was Hussein Kamel, who defected to Jordan in 1995 with a great deal of inside information on Iraq's special weapons programs, which he managed. He was later convinced by Saddam to return to Iraq, but executed by the ruler soon after his arrival.
But what Kamel told his interrogators was the exact opposite of what Cheney was claiming he said. After numerous debriefings by officials from the United States, the UN, and Jordan, he said on August 22, 1995, that Saddam had ended all uranium-enrichment programs at the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991 and never restarted them. He also made clear that "all weapons --biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed." Investigators were convinced that Kamel was telling the truth, since he supplied them with a great deal of stolen raw data and was later murdered by his father-in-law as a result. But that was not the story Feith's OSP, Bush's WHIG, or Cheney wanted the American public to hear.
At the same time that Cheney began his media blitz, Ariel Sharon's office in Israel, as if perfectly coordinated, began issuing similar dire warnings concerning Hussein and pressing the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. Like those from Cheney, pronouncements from Sharon's top aide, Ranaan Gissin, included frightening "evidence" --- equally phony --- of nuclear, as well as biological and chemical, threats.
"As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, " said an Associated Press report on the briefing, "Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin. 'Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,' he said. . . . Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, Gissin said."
It was clear, based on the postwar reviews done in Israel, that Israeli intelligence had no such evidence. Instead, the "evidence" was likely cooked up in Sharon's own Office of Special Plans unit, which was coordinating its activities with the Feith/Wurmser/Shulsky Office of Special Plans. The joint get-Saddam media blitz would also explain the many highly secret visits by the Israeli generals to Feith's office during the summer..
"Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Minister said Friday," the AP report continued. " "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage with serve no purpose,' Gissin told the Associated Press. 'It will only give him [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.'"
As expected. Sharon's callw as widely publicized and increased pressure on Congress, which often bows to Israel's wishes, to vote in favor of the Bush war resolution. "Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack," said a CBS News headline. "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday," said the report.
The story also made the news in London, where the Guardian newspaper ran the headline: "Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq." It went on, "With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to make it clear that he is the US president's most reliable ally."
It was as if the Feith-Wurmser-Perle "Clean Break" plan come full circle. Their plan for Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein and put a pro-Israel regime in his place had been rejected by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now Bush, with Sharon's support, was about to put it into effect.
Across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also contributed to the war fever by releasing a much-hyped report that reinforced the White House theme that Iraq was an imminent threat not only to the United States but also to Britain. In addition to including a reference to the bogus Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the report -- later dubbed the "doggie dossier"--made another frightening claim. It warned that Iraq could launch a deadly biological or chemical attack with long-range ballistic missiles on British tourists and servicemen in Cyprus with just forty-five minute's notice.
Only after the war would it be publicly revealed that the reference was not to a strategic weapon that could reach Cyprus, but simply to a short-range battlefield weapon that could not come anywhere close to Cyprus. And because all the missiles were disassembled, even to fire on them on the battlefield would take not forty-five minutes but days of assembly and preparation. At least three times prior to the war, Blair was warned by intelligence officials that the report was inaccurate, but he made no public mention of it.. "
Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.